[time 605] Re: [time 601] Re: [time 594] Reply to Stephen about geometrictime, subjective time, etc..:part II

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:55:53 +0300 (EET DST)

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Dear Matti et al,
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> snip
> > > > [MP] Also cognitive spacetime sheets contain classical fields and energy
> > > > but energies are extremely tiny. Cognitive spacetime sheets
> > > > take small sample of material spacetime sheet: they are measurement
> > > > instruments.
> > >
> > > Umm, how is the "sample" related to the "whole"? This looks like the
> > > css "tastes" the mss...
> > >
> > [MP] Basically it tastes. For instance, extremely tiny current through
> > potentiometer allows to measure the potential difference associated with
> > circuit. Frequencies are mapped to frequencies (radio forecasting).
> I did not think that it is necessary to have direct "connections"
> between the space-times of LSs, e.g. worm holes, but the main idea of
> TGD, starting from Wheeler's thought, makes me wonder about it. We
> really need to have an understanding of how Pratt's causality works. We
> should call it "coinductive causality". The mapping of frequencies to
> frequencies, does not require "touching", the mechanical means of
> causation, we can instead think in terms of "entrainment" and
> "bisimulation".

This is purely mechanical means of causation. In Pratt's approach
cognition and matter are quite different level things.
In TGD 'duality' is realized geometrically. But if is of course important
to notice that this geometric mind is not consciousness but only
cognitive representation. Vladimir Poponins's experiment about phantom DNA
have been replicated and could be interpreted as support for cognitive
spacetime sheets associated with DNA.

How much one can understand about free will in Pratt's approach.
Could one for instance show that the behaviour of matter determines
that of mind but not vice versa?

> > >
> > >[SPK]I have a way of defining energy! I just do not know how to explain
> > >it mathematically... It is roughly the potential difference between the
> > > LSs. If the LSs are at equilibrium with respect to each other, there is
> > > no energy definable. The use of "integrals over entire geometric
> > > spacetimes" to calculate scattering rates makes sense!
> > >
> > [MP]
> > Defining energy withouth introducing time: I am not sure whether you mean
> > this. But again there are *very* strong purely group theoretic constraints
> > on energy. Energy and momenta must transform in quite specific manner in
> > Lorentz transformations: this is empirical particle physics fact.
> > To summarize it: if one gives up time, one must still be able to realize
> > Poincare group as at least approximate symmetries, not in spacetime
> > anymore but in statespace.
> Umm, this characterization is incorrect. The LSs that are at
> equilibrium with each other have neither energy nor time relative to
> each other. What we really need to to understand how the time and energy
> quantities are canonical conjugates of each other. I completely agree
> with your point about the group theoretic constraints! I hope to have
> the Schommers papers to you by the end of the week, I would like to
> discuss his formalism of time-energy operators.
> > Also Maxwells equations, etc.. are essentially 4-dimensional construct.
> > E and B form components of 4-dimensional tensor. Again one should
> > end up with situation in which everything is apparently 4-dimensional.
> > Time appears as a parameter which behaves as a time coordinate
> > in spirit of Einstein. In this kind of situation it is not useful
> > to pretend that geometric time is not there.
> I agree. :-) This is one of the reasons why I think that Weyl's scale
> invariance theory has something to tell us! His theory seems to explain
> why we experience objects in terms of 4-dimensions. And this action term
> gives a simple principle of greatest probability. "The law of nature is
> that the actual state of the world [that the observer experiences] is
> that which is statistically most probable." (Space, Time and Gravitation
> : An Outline of the General Relativity Theory (Cambridge Science
> Classics Series) by Arthur S. Eddington, pg. 178) [my note] The
> relationship between the vector potential and scalar potential, sources
> of EMF, that seem to me to be intimately related to the dimensionality
> and group theoretic behavior of space-times and that it is possible to
> relate these to variations of geometry is significant.
> > [SPK] Yes! I would very much like to understand what you are thinking on
> > > this! :-)
> >
> > [MP] It seems that I am poor communicator or that these ideas are not
> > communicable(;-). Could it be that your dualistic philosophy is what
> > makes it so difficult to understand my point of view?
> I don't think so! In the dualistic mode, a "third" is understandable,
> it is the relationship between the dual opposites. Thus, I think, that
> "psychological time" is a relationship between subjective and geometric
> "times". The problem I have is that you use the term time in a confusing
> manner. To me, time is a measure of change. Applied to geometry, it is a
> measure of the variations of the geometry. Applied to subjectivity, it
> is a measure of the variation in the perceptions of such, this would be
> a variation either continuous or discrete of the frame of observation,
> the "picture seen". This translates into a variation in the space-time
> that the LS observes.

It is good to strip everything unnecessary from the concepts. Geometric
time is just one coordinate, nothing else. Subjective time is what we feel
to pass: we have short term memory measurable as few geometric seconds
and something like 10^40 quantum jumps.

Psychological time corresponds to the fact that the passing of
subjective time corresponds to increasing sequence of values of
geometric time. Cognitive spacetime sheets moving quantum jump by quantum
jump along material spacetime sheets to the direction of geometric

Psychologicla time is much more than culture dependent construction:
every cognitive spacetime sheet drifts in this manner. Of course, very few
of them are able to form the concept of psychological time and realize
it increases and even to ponder its arrow.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST